Green Room

Tim Allen … closet conservative?

Via John Lott, who notes that Tim Allen’s sitcom had to add in some slams at Mitt Romney for “balance.” In this clip from Friday’s installment of Jimmy Kimmel, Allen tells Kimmel that it’s better to give away money than let the government take it away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QFeQUYuGxHw

JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST: Does your family ask you for money when you go back home?

TIM ALLEN: Yes!

KIMMEL: Do they? Yeah, yeah.

ALLEN: Does that ever work, you know? This folds into the government, doesn’t it?

KIMMEL: I think it does work.

ALLEN: You can’t give people money and help them. It doesn’t work.

KIMMEL: Yeah, but they’re willing to try.

ALLEN: Yeah, they are definitely willing to. Oh, God, did you bring up a sore one.

KIMMEL: Well, why don’t you make an announcement right now that you’re headed home and you won’t be giving any money to anyone?

ALLEN: Well, you know what I look at sometimes, I say, “Rather them than the government.”

KIMMEL: I see.

ALLEN: You know, you better give your money away before it gets taken from you.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The problem with “giving away money,” even though it sounds good on its face (as opposed to taxation), is that there is a collective action problem. Charitable giving should be encouraged. But people give to diffuse, unconnected organizations, and there are inefficiencies, multiplied overhead costs, and lack of economies of scale. It is better to coordinate funding efforts. Taxation isn’t the only way to do this, but it is one very good way. When we rely on private donations for social welfare, it is much less likely that money will be contributed in sufficient amounts and to the most socially useful causes than if we have a coordinated effort, collectively decided when we vote for our political representatives. So I support raising revenue over using the tax system to incentivize private giving (e.g., we ought to lower or eliminate deductions for charitable giving).

I mean he always came off looking like an idiot but at least he rebelled against it.

terryannonline on November 26, 2012 at 12:43 PM

I guess this settles it, then: Tim Allen must be a conservative. What a great description! I could imagine this on the tombstone of nearly every Tea Partier: “He always came off looking like an idiot, but at least he rebelled against it.” Brilliant!

I guess this settles it, then: Tim Allen must be a conservative. What a great description! I could imagine this on the tombstone of nearly every Tea Partier: “He always came off looking like an idiot, but at least he rebelled against it.” Brilliant!

Alpha_Male on November 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I’m against sitcoms always making men look like idiots but what can I say? That’s politically correct Hollywood. Did you think they would actually let a macho man come off well? LOL!

Of course, governmental revenue consists primarily of taxation. I chose the term “raising revenue” rather than “raising taxes” because there are many options other than simply increasing existing tax rates for bringing in more money (not that I’m categorically opposed to increasing some tax rates). Conservatives’ attempt to redefine opposing arguments, waging glorious battles against terrifying straw men, continues apace.

P.S. I also favor broad spending reductions and entitlement reform. I guess you’ll still call me a statist.

I remember Home Improvement being tough on conservatives, but it usually revolved around Jonathan Taylor Thomas’ character, who was quite popular and might have had a say in his character.

There was an episode of Allen’s latest sitcom where he tries (to no avail) tp get his daughter to vote for Romney. Although his character is more Archie Bunker than an older version of Alex P Keaton.

joshleguern on November 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM

I don’t remember it being tough on conservatives. Thomas’s character was definitely liberal…one episode was about him interviewing the head of Binford about their environmental record, another had him adopting some trees in the rainforest or whatever as Christmas gifts to the family, etc. But overall, I don’t think there was a political bent to the show at all.

I’m betting there’s a fair amount of fiscal cons in Hollywood, moreso as the wealthy have become bigger and bigger targets.

I’m betting there’s a fair amount of fiscal cons in Hollywood, moreso as the wealthy have become bigger and bigger targets.

changer1701 on November 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

There are more conservatives in Hollywood than we would be led to believe, but unless you are a very well-established figure like Tim Allen, you have to keep it very quiet. Being a conservative, or even a moderate Republican, is the modern blacklist in Hollywood.

Allen is probably one of those Hollywood guys David Mamet describes as “living right, but voting left”. I always liked him personally, and usually I’m pretty good at spotting a celebrity who has some conservative/libertarian convictions even though they aren’t public about it.

“diffuse, unconnected organizations, and there are inefficiencies, multiplied overhead costs, and lack of economies of scale.”

This accurately describes free societies and markets and yet we know that trusting individual choices works better. We know this, if we study history.

Alpha, your argument is precisely the ones used 80 years ago when all the fashionable people wanted a top down government which made the trains run on time. However, their assumption that governance is somehow more efficient and better coordinated ignores the reality of government decisionmaking: that it is made to buy favors and build patronage networks, not to increase utility. As Uncle Milt used to say: “Where will you find these angels to rule over us?”

Consumer spending is not wasted because it is assumed that free citizens spend it the way they want. Who are you to tell them otherwise? Your arguments sound nice (just like the ones 80 years ago) but ultimately end in tyranny.

I could imagine this on the tombstone of nearly every Tea Partier: “He always came off looking like an idiot, but at least he rebelled against it.” Brilliant!

Alpha_Male on November 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I don’t remember who said it but I remember the quote: “If you can make fun of yourself, the rest of the world is fair game.”

So what if Allen made fun of himself? Considering that liberals have castrated themselves into metrosexual wimps making fun of yourself is the only choice so that wimpy, girly men like Alpha_Male’s feeeeewiiinngs aren’t hurt. We don’t want Alpha_Male to cry like a little baby because we say something he doesn’t like, do we?

Once upon a time, men used to be proud to provide for their family. Now, thanks to the left, working is a naughty word. Getting food stamps is preferential.

Of course, governmental revenue consists primarily of taxation. I chose the term “raising revenue” rather than “raising taxes” because there are many options other than simply increasing existing tax rates for bringing in more money (not that I’m categorically opposed to increasing some tax rates).

Considering that both, in the end, require individuals to contribute more you’re confirming that it’s really about your feelings, nothing more.

It’s also interesting how you never require the government to spend less. I can understand, Democrats need to buy their support.

Charitable giving should be encouraged. But people give to diffuse, unconnected organizations, and there are inefficiencies, multiplied overhead costs, and lack of economies of scale.

Unlike the government which is completely efficient and has no alterior motives whatsoever.

To quote Ron White, “You can’t fix stupid.”

It is better to coordinate funding efforts. Taxation isn’t the only way to do this, but it is one very good way. When we rely on private donations for social welfare, it is much less likely that money will be contributed in sufficient amounts and to the most socially useful causes than if we have a coordinated effort, collectively decided when we vote for our political representatives.

And your evidence to support this is…..nothing.

So I support raising revenue over using the tax system to incentivize private giving (e.g., we ought to lower or eliminate deductions for charitable giving).

Good, give away more of your money to the government and you will feel much better. I’m sure you’re doing that right now! (/sarc)

“diffuse, unconnected organizations, and there are inefficiencies, multiplied overhead costs, and lack of economies of scale.”

Government is the only entity that is praised for spending every cent of its money stupidly because it got a great economy of scale on the stupid.

Charities are diffuse – they also love and die based on their contributions and thus attempt to spend every dime wisely. Government has no such impetus, it just gives the store away expecting little in the way of repayment, save votes for the Democrat from the recipients of the client state.

Via John Lott, who notes that Tim Allen’s sitcom had to add in some slams at Mitt Romney for “balance.”

Last Man Standing was good in the first season. It was occasionally political in that it supported conservative and libertarian values, but the only reference to a politician I remember was in the first episode, when his daughter said that half the words her young son knew were “I blame Obamacare”.

This season, it’s taken a complete nosedive. Far from just adding “some slams at Mitt Romney” they’ve turned the eldest daughter into a liberal activist missing only the ANSWER placard. In the “Politics” episode, I think every criticism of Obama was answered, while some attacks against Romney went without response. Of coure, they also had to work in an attack on Sarah Palin while they were at it. And did I mention that Tim Allen’s character is apparently a Birther?

Further episodes this season continue to include politics; the most recent episode had Allen’s character comment that the Clintons keep popping up like the shingles, and a cute little exchange between the eldest daughter and her five year old son just wouldn’t have been complete without a mention of how some states don’t allow gay marriage.

The problem with “giving away money,” even though it sounds good on its face (as opposed to taxation), is that there is a collective action problem. Charitable giving should be encouraged. But people give to diffuse, unconnected organizations, and there are inefficiencies, multiplied overhead costs, and lack of economies of scale. It is better to coordinate funding efforts.
Alpha_Male on November 26, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Collectivist tripe!

P.S. I also favor broad spending reductions and entitlement reform. I guess you’ll still call me a statist.

Alpha_Male on November 26, 2012 at 1:25 PM

We will stop calling you a statist when you get the progs to stop calling us raaaaacists because we disagree with the policies of your lord and savior.
In other words, it’s not going to happen statist.